Customers are up in arms as news comes that the SIM-unlocked version of Samsung's latest Note "phablet" features DVD-style region locking, meaning that frequent intercontinental travelers must pay carrier roaming rates to use their devices on a cellular network overseas.

On the heels of accusations that Samsung aped Apple's iPhone 5s with the release of its new gold-colored Galaxy S4 variant, the Korean electronics giant is facing yet another public relations disaster. GigaOmreported on Thursday that SIM-unlocked European and North American versions of the Galaxy Note 3, Samsung's newest entrant in the "phablet" race, are limited to using SIM cards only from the regions where they were purchased.

According to British technology retailer Clove, the European version of the device ships with a sticker advising the buyer that the "product is only compatible with a SIM-card issued from a mobile operator within Europe." This could be bad news for frequent travelers, as it means they will be unable to purchase and use lower-cost local SIM cards when they move outside the device's home region, instead being forced to succumb to often-onerous roaming conditions from their home carriers.

Region locks are normally employed for content ? such as movies or video games ? that faces licensing policies which vary based on geographical boundaries. The popular canonical example of region locking is the restriction placed on DVDs: Discs and players must feature matching region codes in order to work, which famously caused headaches for frequent MacBook-toting international travelers as the laptop's DVD drive region setting could only be changed five times.

The news comes as Apple begins to expand its own support for globetrotting owners of the company's iOS devices. On Tuesday, it was revealed that Cupertino plans to lift geographic restrictions on its popular AppleCare+ warranty coverage, allowing travelers to have their device serviced outside of their home country.

Is anyone really buying Samsung phones for business anyway? It's more for the unemployed, correct?

I do believe that you are correct. Android is for the financially disadvantaged, and for those who don't have money to fully use their devices (data etc.). Basically it's for kids, the unemployed, people on welfare and street beggars.

The OP mentions frequent intercontinental travelers, and whenever I take a flight, the majority of what I see are people using iOS devices.

I do believe that you are correct. Android is for the financially disadvantaged, and for those who don't have money to fully use their devices (data etc.). Basically it's for kids, the unemployed, people on welfare and street beggars.

The OP mentions frequent intercontinental travelers, and whenever I take a flight, the majority of what I see are people using iOS devices.

This could be bad news for frequent travelers, as it means they will be unable to purchase and use lower-cost local SIM cards when they move outside the device's home region, instead being forced to succumb to often-onerous roaming conditions from their home carriers.

What I don't get, is who are these frequent international travelers who need to swap out a local SIM? Frequent International travelers are usually business people. Personally, I need my business associates to be able to reach me anytime, anywhere, which means that I must maintain the original SIM even when abroad. I also carry an unlocked iPhone for use with a local carrier. If someone calls me on my US number, most of the time I don't answer it, but I know they called, so I just call them back on Skype. Obviously, I also need a local SIM to make and receive calls in the foreign country to do errands, business etc. I don't see how a business person can get around carrying two phones or perhaps a dual SIM phone of which there used to be some available from Nokia.

You can pay for a US phone number from Skype and forward your US cell phone calls to that number which in theory could allow you to receive calls on your local SIM carrier when abroad, however it doesn't work reliably and you miss a lot of calls.

I do believe that you are correct. Android is for the financially disadvantaged, and for those who don't have money to fully use their devices (data etc.). Basically it's for kids, the unemployed, people on welfare and street beggars.

The OP mentions frequent intercontinental travelers, and whenever I take a flight, the majority of what I see are people using iOS devices.

you can have all the money in the world but if you want a phone of that form factor you certainly can't get one from Apple

At the present time, that is correct.

I have this theory though, and it goes like this. A lot of the people who I see using ridiculous, large Android phones look like people that most likely do not own a larger tablet device, so they're looking to save money and get a phablet that covers both bases.

The only problem is that it doesn't do a good job at either, IMO. It's a bit too large for a phone to be carried conveniently around, IMO. And the tablet part of it is a bit too small for it to be enjoyable, IMO. If I'm first going to carry around a large item like a phablet, I might as well have an iPad in my bag and an iPhone in my pocket. That'll be far superior to any phablet type device, in my opinion.

The company clarifies exactly which devices fall under this restriction, explaining, “the regional SIM card lock only affects the following Samsung models that are produced from the end of July 2013, and provided with a corresponding sticker: SamsungGALAXYS III, II, GALAXY Note, GALAXY S4, S4 GALAXY mini and the GALAXY Note 3”

What I don't get, is who are these frequent international travelers who need to swap out a local SIM? Frequent International travelers are usually business people. Personally, I need my business associates to be able to reach me anytime, anywhere, which means that I must maintain the original SIM even when abroad. I also carry an unlocked iPhone for use with a local carrier. If someone calls me on my US number, most of the time I don't answer it, but I know they called, so I just call them back on Skype. Obviously, I also need a local SIM to make and receive calls in the foreign country to do errands, business etc. I don't see how a business person can get around carrying two phones or perhaps a dual SIM phone of which there used to be some available from Nokia.

You can pay for a US phone number from Skype and forward your US cell phone calls to that number which in theory could allow you to receive calls on your local SIM carrier when abroad, however it doesn't work reliably and you miss a lot of calls.

Lots of people don't want to travel with two phones. They give the local number to the people they are travelling to meet with. Pretty simple, really.

Region locking may derail unlocked movement, but it is still superior to carrier locking. Provided one can unlock the phone once contract obligation is fulfilled or unlocked phone is also available at unsubsidized pricing, I would much rather have region locked iPhone than carrier locked iPhone 5 that I am carrying now.

Region locking may derail unlocked movement, but it is still superior to carrier locking. Provided one can unlock the phone once contract obligation is fulfilled or unlocked phone is also available at unsubsidized pricing, I would much rather have region locked iPhone than carrier locked iPhone 5 that I am carrying now.

Except if you have a carrier locked iPhone 5, you would also have a carrier AND region locked Note 3.

Customers are up in arms as news comes that the SIM-unlocked version of Samsung's latest Note "phablet" features DVD-style region locking, meaning that frequent intercontinental travelers must pay carrier roaming rates to use their devices on a cellular network overseas.

What do you know? Samsung is innovative, after all.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Region locking may derail unlocked movement, but it is still superior to carrier locking. Provided one can unlock the phone once contract obligation is fulfilled or unlocked phone is also available at unsubsidized pricing, I would much rather have region locked iPhone than carrier locked iPhone 5 that I am carrying now.

I don't know about other carriers but Sprint allowed me to unlock my iPhone very easily. It was a long time ago so I can't remember the exact details but they asked for some info then I connected my iPhone to iTunes and got a message it was unlocked.

I have this theory though, and it goes like this. A lot of the people who I see using ridiculous, large Android phones look like people that most likely do not own a larger tablet device, so they're looking to save money and get a phablet that covers both bases.

The only problem is that it doesn't do a good job at either, IMO. It's a bit too large for a phone to be carried conveniently around, IMO. And the tablet part of it is a bit too small for it to be enjoyable, IMO. If I'm first going to carry around a large item like a phablet, I might as well have an iPad in my bag and an iPhone in my pocket. That'll be far superior to any phablet type device, in my opinion.

"I have this theory though, and it goes like this. A lot of the people who I see using ridiculous, large Android phones look like people that most likely do not own a larger tablet device, so they're looking to save money and get a phablet that covers both bases. The only problem is that it doesn't do a good job at either, IMO. It's a bit too large for a phone to be carried conveniently around, IMO. And the tablet part of it is a bit too small for it to be enjoyable, IMO."

Actually, there is value for a larger screened phone about the size of the Samsung Galaxy Note 1 (in the context of the iPad mini).

For some people, a larger screen phone actually would be normal-sized, whereas a 4" iPhone looks comically small.

I have seen individuals with large hands holding an iPhone with a 4" screen that looks like an iPhone with a 3.5" screen. A larger screened iPhone for such individuals, would be proportionate to their hands and more comfortable to text on.

I myself like the palm-ability of the iPad mini, and would much prefer a larger screened iPhone about the size and proportion of the Samsung Galaxy Note 1.

You retain the portability of the iPhone, but have a little more screen real estate (which is always nice).

A larger screened iPhone about the size of the Samsung Galaxy Note 1 would nicely fit between the 4" iPhone and the 8.9" iPad mini.

As ridiculous as it may seem, a Bluetooth headset would be a nice compliment to such a phone; and you would only need to traditionally use the phone if a BT headset isn't available.

It would even be nice if Apple were to make an iPad mini with a cellular radio that allow you to make and receive phone calls. As comical as it may seem to put such a device up to your head (like the Samsung Galaxy Note 8), a BT headset (or the Apple headphones) would work well with the device, or to use the speakerphone as an alternative.

Is anyone really buying Samsung phones for business anyway? It's more for the unemployed, correct?

That was the most absurd comment I have ever read. Having a phone shows your financial status? Speaking of brainwashing. I use a Nexus and I'm very successful. Wake up people using aplle products doesn't mean you are rich. Does it mean that if an author uses a Mac his her book is better than an author writing it on a PC?

"using SIM cards only from the regions where they were purchased." Yes, such an odd thing: almost looks as if they're being subsidized by the local carrier? But that's the American phone model, is that really how tablets are marketed internationally?

Region locking may derail unlocked movement, but it is still superior to carrier locking. Provided one can unlock the phone once contract obligation is fulfilled or unlocked phone is also available at unsubsidized pricing, I would much rather have region locked iPhone than carrier locked iPhone 5 that I am carrying now.

What I don't get, is who are these frequent international travelers who need to swap out a local SIM? Frequent International travelers are usually business people. Personally, I need my business associates to be able to reach me anytime, anywhere, which means that I must maintain the original SIM even when abroad. I also carry an unlocked iPhone for use with a local carrier. If someone calls me on my US number, most of the time I don't answer it, but I know they called, so I just call them back on Skype. Obviously, I also need a local SIM to make and receive calls in the foreign country to do errands, business etc. I don't see how a business person can get around carrying two phones or perhaps a dual SIM phone of which there used to be some available from Nokia.

You can pay for a US phone number from Skype and forward your US cell phone calls to that number which in theory could allow you to receive calls on your local SIM carrier when abroad, however it doesn't work reliably and you miss a lot of calls.

I travel a lot and have 2 SIM cards (in addition to my local Canadian SIM). Roaming is stupid expensive and it pisses me off enough to go the SIM route. I have a UK SIM and when I get to the UK, I put £10 on it and I get 100 free minutes to Canada (which is a lot more reliable than Skype and iChat, which are at the whim of the network connection). It gives me cheap calls, text and internet (£1/day for internet access). Roaming is also a lot cheaper, so I use it all over Europe. I can always set my local phone to forward to the UK number, so while I still pay for long distance, I don't get dinged for the roaming air time. Compare that to $1.50+/minute and about $30/MB of data, and it saves hundreds of dollars and is more reliable than Skype. I do the same for the US with an ATT card.

If the carriers here had roaming plans that were not obscene, I would stick with them, but they are over the top with the costs.

In this case it not Samsung pissing people off it is the service providers they are the one who force this requirement. This is another reason Apple is better they do not succumb to the service providers requirements, Apple listens to the consumer since they are the one paying their bills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andysol

Is anyone really buying Samsung phones for business anyway? It's more for the unemployed, correct?

I think the correct term would be underemployed since the Obama administration has not yet agree to pay for smart phones yet